Is electrification needed to avoid a DMU order by 2020?

[AM9]

I wonder if any Transport Secretary will be brave enough to stand up and announce that some non-compliant trains will stay in use for a year or two after 2020, because of delays to electrification and the large cost of accessibility mods for a very short remaining life.

They may if reduced services are the only alternative to a temporary derogation. I suppose that the acessibility lobby would create a lot of noise but they could hardly claim that there were thousands of needy travellers who had put their travel off until 01/01/2020 and were now stranded.

 

[northwichcat]

They may if reduced services are the only alternative to a temporary derogation. I suppose that the acessibility lobby would create a lot of noise but they could hardly claim that there were thousands of needy travellers who had put their travel off until 01/01/2020 and were now stranded.

Post-2019 a 142 attached to a compliant Sprinter would not comply so an exemption could be granted to allow such formations but to not allow exemptions for 142s by themselves. That would probably create the least objections overall. However, it may well result in more operators having Pacers in their fleets, given Northern operate many services using a 142 or a pair of 142s.

 

[snowball]

There's a difference between commitment in terms of placing it on a works backlog, and commitment to deliver it by a deadline. That begs the question of resources, and the lead time to secure more resources (delivering new cabling plant, training new OHLE engineers, etc).

Agreed, but the OP was assuming for the purposes of this thread that resources will be available to design and implement by 2020 the wiring of additional lines not yet committed. If such resources are available they'll surely be used first to complete current plans rather than additional ones.

 

[Chester1]

Manchester (Victoria & Guide Bridge) to York & Selby via Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Leeds & Garforth (plus Selby to ECML north & south) is confirmed and due by the end of 2018. Selby-Hull, York-Scarborough and Northallerton-Middlesborough all feel like logical additions based on the franchise map. DMUs running the bulk of their route under the wires feels particularly wasteful when there's a shortage!

One scheme that could free up some newer DMUs could be to extend some West Midlands electrification: Lichfield-Rugeley is a committed scheme, adding Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury and Bromsgrove-Worcester could make all of the London Midland services via New Street electric if the Hereford services were transferred to Snow Hill. There should be leftover 170s after accounting for the additional units required to extend some of the Snow Hill to Worcester terminators and allowing for stock required to run the Coventry-Nuneaton services. This would also allow for electric Euston to Shrewsbury services instead of Voyagers under the wires.

Are they any of these on the short list for CP6?

Hull is certain to get wires, Hull Trains have said they'll will fund it if the DfT don't.
Also a new DMU order looks likely, namely the D-Trains from Vivarail.
Even after electric wires are put up (behind schedule with Network Rail) there won't be enough DMUs to run services after a complete Pacer withdrawal as they number in the hundreds, no EMU order will match that.
So Porterbrook's will probably all be upgraded and the 142s scrapped.

But... I suspect that the realisation of a DMU shortage will prompt a new order. At the moment loco hauled services are needed on Cumbrian Coast line, this will become commonplace unless more DMUs are purchased.

There are not hundreds of pacers there are 125 (I think): 79 142s and 23 144s (Northern Rail) and 15 ATW and 8 FGW 143s. Id be surprised if the D trains solution actually happens. I am surprised it has got to the stage it has.

Also, the 142s are going but the 143s and 144s are going to be around after 2020.

Based on mileage for double track it should be £50-£55m but there are two long estuary viaducts and a tunnel so may be a little more. I would like to see electrification of this route added to the Northwest scheme after Windermere but extended to Millom which means electrifying the Barrow avoider route also.

I say Millom as there is a frequent bus service from here to Whitehaven to supplement the paucity of rail services north of Millom after the evening peak and on Sundays. If necessary diesel services could terminate at Millom with electric connections to Barrow and south thereof.

Modern signalling would allow more flexibility day and night throughout the Coast line

I think Carnforth-Barrow is a decent electrification option a long way in the future but the solution for freeing up DMUs in the short term is to cut the service in two with Manchester-Lancaster being run by First with EMUs and Lancaster-Barrow being run by Northern Rail being as a faster express service compared with Northern Rail's existing service. it would eliminate allot of running under the wires.

Hopefully not!



I can't see it.

First of all, the planned CP5 electrification ought to release over two hundred DMUs (based on existing commitments, not including "rumoured" bits like Hull). I know that things are already behind schedule and being pushed beyond April 2019, but on the assumption that everything promised gets done, we have:

• Scotland - at least fifty DMUs, maybe seventy five. I reckon there's around fifty DMUs replaced directly by electrification (e.g. the Falkirk High line needs sixteen DMUs at rush hour, the Dunblane/Alloa - Edinburgh/ Glasgow routes need a similar amount, add on "southside" electrification to places like East Kilbride, there\s Shotts... ) and maybe twenty five/ thirty replaced by the twenty seven HSTs.
  
• Valley Lines - around fifty DMUs (the off peak diagrams through Cardiff Queen Street need thirty three DMUs, not including Ebbw Vale/ Maesteg/ Swanlinel, not including doubled up DMUs, not including peak extras, not including maintenance, so I think fifty DMUs would be my benchmark from south Wales)
  
• Thames Valley - around fifty DMUs (in rough terms, you'll need about nine 165/166s for the Redhill/Gatwick services and one for the Greenford brach, but apart from that all 165/166s could be replaced by electrification)

...so that's over a hundred and fifty DMUs.

There's probably the best part of fifty DMUs in the "Lancashire Triangle" area (Manchester to Liverpool/ Wigan/ Preston/ Blackpool/ Windermere, Liverpool to Wigan/ Preston/ Blackpool) and I reckon around thirty from the Transpennine corridor (assuming the existing services to Middlesbrough/ Scarborough are reduced/chopped).

You could possibly get to another fifty if you added up all of the little schemes (GOBLIN, Marston Vale, Chase, Nuneaton to Coventry, a couple of 180s from FGW, converting the Manchester - Bournemouth XC service to EMU operation, the WCML franchise bringing in "baby Pendolini" to replace some of their Voyagers).

Around thirty in the East Midlands (the entire fleet of 222s plus the Sprinters used on the Leicester - Nottingham stopper).

So, I reckon over two hundred DMUs, maybe three hundred (note - I'm not including any HSTs replaced by electrification as they can be assumed as life expired or are earmarked for Scotland) - possibly more if some services are revised to reflect the new electrification map (e.g. Cardiff - Portsmouth becomes an EMU from Swansea/Cardiff to Bristol and a DMU from Bristol to Portsmouth).

So, if everything planned happens before CP5 ends in April 2019 (or at least by 31 December 2014) then we'll have enough DMUs to replace all Pacers. Bung in some D78s and there'll be plenty of DMUs.

However, a lot of the DMUs freed up are the wrong type for direct Pacer replacement (Voyagers, Meridians, 185s, 170s...) and all of the above is based on the assumption that he current plans do actually happen (given the delays and overspends, that's far from guaranteed).

Plus, there's the issue that Pacer replacement is only the first hurdle - we'll need to take large numbers of other DMUs out of service for months to upgrade them to accessibility standards (which won't be easy to arrange, given the numbers of Sprinters we are talking about), there's the future of 153s, there's a whole load of problems ahead of us (though I appreciate some will be fixated with Pacer replacement).

If you want "low hanging fruit" then there are a few lines with relatively frequent services (Warrington Central, Sheffield to Moorthorpe/Doncaster, Uckfield...) without having to worry about routes that only see an hourly service like Barrow in Furness.

However, I think we are better focussing resources on the schemes already committed to - if we are struggling to wire something like the Chat Moss line on time then adding additional schemes to Network Rail's "to do" list probably isn't going to help things.

I didn't realise there would be that many freed up by electrification. It appears the shortage is very much going to be of cheap sprinters not DMUs and Disel loco hauled services.

With CP5 electrification being mostly mainlines, CP6 (in my opinion) needs to be mostly about infill schemes that will displace the most DMUs. My suggestions are:

Anglia region. Peterborough - Ely - Norwich and Cambridge - Ipswich, plus the Sudbury and Felixstowe branches. You then only have Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft to worry about in the future, with the added benefit that the few DMUs required can be based at Crown Point to cover those lines.

Manchester. There are a lot of commuter services to the South East of the city which can all be switched to EMU operation in 1 go, freeing up a lot of DMUs. If Stockport - Chester is wired as well, that only leaves the Hope Valley to be wired at some point.

Yorkshire and Humber. All routes out of Sheffield and Leeds should be done, but there's a couple of questions. Should Sheffield - Lincoln be wired as well, and how far to you take the wires East of Doncaster? Scunthorpe, or all the way to Cleethorpes?

Other routes to be wired are Birmingham - Nuneaton - Leicester - Peterborough (with the Anglia electrification mentioned above), means all XC severices can go over to EMU operation, and Birmingham - Bristol (plus Cheltenham - Gloucester - Newport) so Manchester - Bristol and Nottingham - Cardiff services can go to EMU operation (using baby pendolini if needed).

Depending on the Electric Spine progress, Newcastle - Reading/Southampton could also go over to EMU operation.

I admit all of the above is ambitious for 1 control period, which means it will have to be spread over 2, but that's the bulk of the electrification needed, with everything else in the future being infill schemes.

Agreed, but the OP was assuming for the purposes of this thread that resources will be available to design and implement by 2020 the wiring of additional lines not yet committed. If such resources are available they'll surely be used first to complete current plans rather than additional ones.

That sounds like a reasonable strategy. If the government wanted more lines to be wired in CP6 than current resources allow, could foreign companies be used to provide the relevant equipment and expertise?

Is it worth sending "inappropriate" DMUs for services because they're better than anything/pacers.

For example, MML electrification displaces the 222s. Would they be worth sending over to Northern to run York to Blackpool North (for example), displacing some 158 to displace a pacer? Or even to TPE, displacing the 185 fleet to Northern Rail etc.

What would be the important issues in doing this, even for a short while, as the electrification occurs.

I think Northern running 222s would be a total waste of money. The only sensible use in the north I can think of is running them on TPE Manchester-Scotland services. It would be running under the wires the whole way but they would be faster than the new EMU service.Perhaps Manchester-Sheffield if there is a signficant gap between wiring the MML and hope Valley line. The 222s (and Voyagers if the DfT force Virgin to use use full or new "mini Pendalinos" for Birmingham Scotland services), would best be used to replace loco hauled FGW and Scotrail services (which are being introduced from 2018). The coaches could be split into 3s and 4s and used for loco hauled services were extra capacity is needed on regional disel lines.

Post-2019 a 142 attached to a compliant Sprinter would not comply so an exemption could be granted to allow such formations but to not allow exemptions for 142s by themselves. That would probably create the least objections overall. However, it may well result in more operators having Pacers in their fleets, given Northern operate many services using a 142 or a pair of 142s.

Angel trains don't want to upgrade the Class 142s and there is significant political pressure to get rid of pacers by 2020 therefore I think 142s will be gone by 31/12/2019. Class 144s (and I think 143s) have the correct equipment to be attached to sprinters, have 2+2 seats, are newer and the owners are willing to upgrade them. Id like to see the pacers go but I think a minor refurb and an exemption from DDA if they are attached to compliant sprinters is a workable solution for a while. The government could argue it was a short term solution and that it was only 46 of the better pacers staying while the worst 79 were getting scrapped. Its not unfair to expect disabled passengers to only use the sprinter section of the train if they can only access universal access toilets, I am surprised this isn't in the legislation.

 

[Bevan Price]

I wonder if any Transport Secretary will be brave enough to stand up and announce that some non-compliant trains will stay in use for a year or two after 2020, because of delays to electrification and the large cost of accessibility mods for a very short remaining life.

Well -yes, if it is a choice between a government spending more money (directly or indirectly), or changing a regulation, then changing the regulation seems more probable.

 

[Chris125]

I really can't see any need for a DMU order, though you can't rule out an order being placed for political purposes.

Even if electrification didn't account for all the pacers by 2020, and pragmatism didn't see their continued use on quieter lines, there are various short/medium-term cascades involving the use of LHCS, short-formed HSTs a la Scotrail and even D-trains to account for any gap for far less cost and risk than a new build of DMUs.

Chris

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't have the answer to you question but you might find it interesting to know (assuming you don't already) that battery trains are being trialled at the moment. These trains charge on an ac line and then can work on short branches or between gaps in electrified lines. If the trials are successful this will obviously help keep down the number of deisels required.

So how do you then resolve the problem of the Settle to Carlisle Line, the Cumbrian Coast Line or the Newcastle to Carlisle Line?

 

[edwin_m]

So how do you then resolve the problem of the Settle to Carlisle Line, the Cumbrian Coast Line or the Newcastle to Carlisle Line?

They obviously don't help here but they could make a difference at the margins, allowing the remaining DMUs to be concentrated where they are needed most.

Whatever happens, as I think someone has suggested already, there will be a need for more self-powered trains. But possibly not until the mid-2020s when it will be clearer how long classes such as the 150s can be life-extended.

 

[northwichcat]

Even if electrification didn't account for all the pacers by 2020

It doesn't. If North West, Thames Valley, North TPE, Great Western and Valley Lines are all completed by then it'll allow for around 50 Pacers to be withdrawn by the time you allow for extra capacity needed across the network - and that's assuming there's no significant growth over the coming 5 years. That leaves around 90 Pacers to be withdrawn using other means.

There's the possibility of Scotrail 170s being used to replace around 3/4s of the remaining Pacers but then if the HSTs aren't released on time or North TPE electrification is delayed then that probably won't happen before 2020.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Post-2019 a 142 attached to a compliant Sprinter would not comply

Are you sure? I thought as long as some of the train provided the required facilities it would be OK?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Carnforth-Barrow is a decent electrification option a long way in the future but the solution for freeing up DMUs in the short term is to cut the service in two with Manchester-Lancaster being run by First with EMUs and Lancaster-Barrow being run by Northern Rail being as a faster express service compared with Northern Rail's existing service.

That isn't likely to be popular, though that said observation at the moment is that most people change from the service at Lancaster if it's only running as far as Preston (as it mostly does on Sundays) so it wouldn't be as bad as made out if the connections are timed.

To be honest I think an hourly regular interval service would be better than having some fast, some slow, when there is little difference between the two. If the paths were used for hourly EMU Manchester-Windermere it might be fairly acceptable.

Neil

 

[Rational Man]

I was aware of the trials but I very much doubt the technology will be ready for mass production and have enough range by 2020. If anything, its going to make a DMU order less likely because its highlighting that new DMUs will be out of date long before their useful working life is over. I reckon they probably be ready to replace sprinters in about 10-15 years time.

BTW will the DMU shortage help keep fares down by forcing the most effiecient use of rolling stock?

I find this interesting as I have just been reading about the use of battery powered trains in Germany. They started to appear in general use in the 1950's (although there were earlier examples) and were used up until the 1990's. Some of them did not recharge the batteries but instead used fork lifts to replace the battery packs, at the main terminus, with freshly charged ones. There is though a caveat (if my German is accurate) that most of the lines they were used on were relatively flat. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akku-Triebwagen

 

[swt_passenger]

There are not hundreds of pacers there are 125 (I think): 79 142s and 23 144s (Northern Rail) and 15 ATW and 8 FGW 143s. Id be surprised if the D trains solution actually happens. I am surprised it has got to the stage it has.

I didn't know the numbers of Pacers without looking it up, but the original post made me wonder, when suggesting that a single order of EMUs couldn't possibly provide for that number of trains.

Of course, when expressed as vehicle numbers the Class 700 'single order' would cover the Pacers with about 800 vehicles left over, and the displaced 319 fleet itself is big enough to replace the number of Pacer vehicles with a few spares.

There have been EMU orders in the past of 100 or more units at once, such as the 450s which originally provided 440 vehicles. So the original proposition seems flawed in that respect.

 

[jon0844]

If the AGA trial of a battery powered 379 is considered a success, how quickly could the industry begin to consider building new rolling stock that could run on batteries, along with electrification of sidings/depots/stations to recharge - but avoiding the need to wire up long sections of track?

Has NR identified a series of possible lines for their use, and an idea of how to run trains to allow for suitable recharging either turnaround, or with top-ups on the way (e.g. a slightly longer dwell time at some stations)? Clearly trains would need to work with the latest fast charging technology (given the power on offer compared to a domestic car, that shouldn't be much of an issue).

I really do think it's possible that some of this could be done by 2020 (maybe I'm being too optimistic, but five years sounds like quite a long time to me!) to avoid the need for lots of new DMUs.

OR, there's a design spec to build a train that can start as a bi-mode with diesel, that can have the tanks removed for batteries later on. The cost of switching will be factored into the build price, meaning ROSCOs end up with a train that has a future even if diesel is no longer needed, or new tighter laws would force them to be changed etc.

 

[northwichcat]

Are you sure? I thought as long as some of the train provided the required facilities it would be OK?

Yes it's been discussed in detail before. To comply a person with limited mobility has to be able to board using the nearest door to them when the train stops. The carriage they travel in needs to have PIS, suitable seating, the correct door controls etc and if toilet facilities are available then there needs to be an accessible toilet either in the carriage they board or accessible to them without leaving and reboarding the train. As the Pacer can't be connected to a complaint Sprinter using corridor connectors a Pacer+Sprinter combination fails unless the Pacer is complaint.

On the other hand permanently attaching a 153 to 155/6s and having one accessible toilet in the middle carriage would be a completely different scenario.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes it's been discussed in detail before. To comply a person with limited mobility has to be able to board using the nearest door to them when the train stops. The carriage they travel in needs to have PIS, suitable seating, the correct door controls etc and if toilet facilities are available then there needs to be an accessible toilet either in the carriage they board or accessible to them without leaving and reboarding the train.

Which a wheelchair user can't do because they won't fit through the gangway on any regular DMU (the 158 interior gangways are I think wider though).

So that's rather inconsistent to say the least.

And wasn't the issue with Pacers accessible bogs? Fitting PIS and spacing a few seats differently and marking them as priority seats isn't the big cost.

Neil

 

[Haydn1971]

It's all very good working on carriage numbers and which have toilets etc, but the picture is more bleak when you consider the condition of many of these older units.

Sure, new seats can be fitted, the interior freshened up, wifi is another easy fit, but once you start digging deeper, fitting air-con, new passenger information displays start getting technically more difficult, furthermore, it's fair to say that with the age of the 14x, 15x & perhaps the 16x fleets, it wouldn't surprise me that ongoing maintenance starts becoming increasingly cost when compared to a new unit that has 30 more years worth of maintenance techniques designed in from the start.

Yeah, sure, some of the long distance routes like transpennine could go over to 222's but hey, what about the dwell times that the 185's where specifically ordered to resolve. Fact is that electrification isn't progressing as fast as it should, the customers are being fobbed off with excuses for continued use of rubbish rolling stock - I wonder sometimes if the people on this forum singing the praises of the sprinters and pacers ever have to use them daily, through the extremes of a 6am winter morning or a 4pm summer afternoon, times of standing room only with half a dozen cycles or pushchairs stacked in the doorways.

It's simple, order some DMU's that can be lengthened in later orders and start scrapping the outdated stock, passengers will be happy, more people will transfer to rail as a nicer alternative to screaming at drivers in the motorway jams that the DfT have allowed to develop over the last 30 years.

 

[edwin_m]

Which a wheelchair user can't do because they won't fit through the gangway on any regular DMU (the 158 interior gangways are I think wider though).

Wheelchairs are about 90cm wide and won't fit through any normal width gangway as far as I can see, or through the aisle of a train with 3+2 seating of any type or 2+2 with armrests. They would probably fit down the aisle of a 2+2 with Metro seating, and all the way through a 378 or a Crossrail unit with wide gangways. Assuming all the standing passengers got out of the way!

 

[northwichcat]

Which a wheelchair user can't do because they won't fit through the gangway on any regular DMU (the 158 interior gangways are I think wider though).

So that's rather inconsistent to say the least.

A wheelchair user will be loaded in to the wheelchair bay using the ramp. The wheelchair bay will be close to an accessible toilet.

There may be a number of passengers with limited mobility who aren't immediately obvious to rail staff and will be able to board the train without being assisted in to a special disabled area.

And wasn't the issue with Pacers accessible bogs? Fitting PIS and spacing a few seats differently and marking them as priority seats isn't the big cost.

Apart from the ATW 142s I think the seats on the 142s would have to be replaced to properly comply. I'm not 100% sure about the ex-Northern Spirit 142s while they have had new seats they are very low down so still may not comply.

People seem to forget there's hundreds of requirements for accessibility on trains not just an accessible toilet, PIS and the doors painted a different colour to the rest of the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There may be a number of passengers with limited mobility who aren't immediately obvious to rail staff and will be able to board the train without being assisted in to a special disabled area.

But aren't going generally to be the kind of people who will be able/willing to walk several coach lengths to find a disabled-style bog. They'll use the nearest one.

Apart from the ATW 142s I think the seats on the 142s would have to be replaced to properly comply. I'm not 100% sure about the ex-Northern Spirit 142s while they have had new seats they are very low down so still may not comply.

People seem to forget there's hundreds of requirements for accessibility on trains not just an accessible toilet, PIS and the doors painted a different colour to the rest of the train.

The toilet is the one that requires a big change to the interior of the vehicle. The majority of the rest of the items are bolt-on.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's simple, order some DMU's that can be lengthened in later orders and start scrapping the outdated stock, passengers will be happy, more people will transfer to rail as a nicer alternative to screaming at drivers in the motorway jams that the DfT have allowed to develop over the last 30 years.

It's simple, until you ask the question of who's paying.

Neil

 

[Haydn1971]

It's simple, until you ask the question of who's paying.

That's simple too... Just like everything else in the country, ultimately the taxpayer pays regardless it being directly from the treasury, indirectly via a PFI or indirectly through benefits to road users from the transfer of car users to rail. It's only complex when you look at the direct impact of the simplistic economics which prevents us from progressing forward.

 

[northwichcat]

But aren't going generally to be the kind of people who will be able/willing to walk several coach lengths to find a disabled-style bog. They'll use the nearest one.

Have you ever looked at how a Pacer toilet compares to the non-wheelchair accessible toilet on a Desiro? There's a huge difference with the latter being a lot more accessible to people with disabilities that don't confine them to a wheelchair such as Braille buttons, a lot more space (meaning someone using 2 walking sticks can actually get in to the toilet), an easier to use door, better lighting etc. A Pacer toilet can be called non-accessible, the second toilet on a Desiro is accessible to people with disabilities with the exception of those in a wheelchair, so it's really partly-accessible not non-accessible.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Which a wheelchair user can't do because they won't fit through the gangway on any regular DMU (the 158 interior gangways are I think wider though).

So that's rather inconsistent to say the least.

And wasn't the issue with Pacers accessible bogs? Fitting PIS and spacing a few seats differently and marking them as priority seats isn't the big cost.

Neil

The toilet could be removed to make them accessible for much less.
The proposed D-Trains don't need them

 

[Chester1]

It's all very good working on carriage numbers and which have toilets etc, but the picture is more bleak when you consider the condition of many of these older units.

Sure, new seats can be fitted, the interior freshened up, wifi is another easy fit, but once you start digging deeper, fitting air-con, new passenger information displays start getting technically more difficult, furthermore, it's fair to say that with the age of the 14x, 15x & perhaps the 16x fleets, it wouldn't surprise me that ongoing maintenance starts becoming increasingly cost when compared to a new unit that has 30 more years worth of maintenance techniques designed in from the start.

Yeah, sure, some of the long distance routes like transpennine could go over to 222's but hey, what about the dwell times that the 185's where specifically ordered to resolve. Fact is that electrification isn't progressing as fast as it should, the customers are being fobbed off with excuses for continued use of rubbish rolling stock - I wonder sometimes if the people on this forum singing the praises of the sprinters and pacers ever have to use them daily, through the extremes of a 6am winter morning or a 4pm summer afternoon, times of standing room only with half a dozen cycles or pushchairs stacked in the doorways.

It's simple, order some DMU's that can be lengthened in later orders and start scrapping the outdated stock, passengers will be happy, more people will transfer to rail as a nicer alternative to screaming at drivers in the motorway jams that the DfT have allowed to develop over the last 30 years.

I use pacers and sprinters fairly often. The biggest problem with pacers are the bus seats on 142s, replacing them with 2+2 seats would be a considerable improvement but still barely acceptable. Attaching 143s and 144s to DDA compliant sprinters is an acceptable short term measure after 2020. Sprinters are very good in context, they are cheap DMUs for non express services. Other trains are better but in the real world they are the best that can be financially justified for lines like the mid cheshire line.

That's simple too... Just like everything else in the country, ultimately the taxpayer pays regardless it being directly from the treasury, indirectly via a PFI or indirectly through benefits to road users from the transfer of car users to rail. It's only complex when you look at the direct impact of the simplistic economics which prevents us from progressing forward.

So do you want your tax bill or your fares increased in order to fund a new class of DMUs that will be obsolete less than half way through their working lives?

 

[northwichcat]

The toilet could be removed to make them accessible for much less.
The proposed D-Trains don't need them

No routes have been confirmed for D-Trains. Vivarail have proposed options for trains both with and without toilets.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

No routes have been confirmed for D-Trains. Vivarail have proposed options for trains both with and without toilets.

Okay, Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear and Isle of Wright trains don't need them(toilets on trains).

 

[40129]

It has always amazed me that people can apparently travel reasonably long distances on LU (e.g. Amersham/Chesham - Aldgate) and Merseyrail (e.g. Chester - Liverpool) without toilets yet trains used on shorter/similar distance routes in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West/South Yorkshire all need toilets

 

[Tremzinho]

It has always amazed me that people can apparently travel reasonably long distances on LU (e.g. Amersham/Chesham - Aldgate) and Merseyrail (e.g. Chester - Liverpool) without toilets yet trains used on shorter/similar distance routes in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West/South Yorkshire all need toilets

On Merseyrail all (or almost all) stations have toilets. Trains are never more than 5 minutes from a stop if you're caught short and, in most cases, you won't need to wait more than 15 minutes for the next train. Also, before the days of retention toilets, the toilets would have to have been locked out of use in the underground sections.

Across the Northern network, few stations have toilets (most have little more than bus shelters) and you could be looking at a 1/2 hour journey to the next stop which has one, trains are also far less frequent, so getting off to use the facilities could add an hour to your journey time.

 

[Haydn1971]

So do you want your tax bill or your fares increased in order to fund a new class of DMUs that will be obsolete less than half way through their working lives?

That's a bit of a straw man, because clearly new DMU's ordered "today" would have full life in service, because once electrification spreads and EMU's become more widespread, the oldest or most unsuitable DMU's would always be retired first.

There's countless ways of providing the investment for new rolling stock, simplistically stating raise fairs or taxes is always used by the nay sayers to kill off talk of investment, or descends into a North vs South vs where ever argument over who had to suffer the oldest trains... Fact is, we need more trains and we need new DMU's to enable retirement of the 14x, 15x and eventually 16x fleets.

 

[Chester1]

That's a bit of a straw man, because clearly new DMU's ordered "today" would have full life in service, because once electrification spreads and EMU's become more widespread, the oldest or most unsuitable DMU's would always be retired first.

There's countless ways of providing the investment for new rolling stock, simplistically stating raise fairs or taxes is always used by the nay sayers to kill off talk of investment, or descends into a North vs South vs where ever argument over who had to suffer the oldest trains... Fact is, we need more trains and we need new DMU's to enable retirement of the 14x, 15x and eventually 16x fleets.

Its not a strawman, assuming that DMUs are withdrawn with age you would need sufficent lines to remain unelectrified until about 2055 to get value for money. There are about 125 pacers and 550 Sprinters in service. There is probably enough very rural lines to justify 125 DMUs but with such a small order DfT has calculated the design costs would be too high.

There maybe countless ways of funding but they boil down to either higher fares or more central government funding (ie tax revanue). The exception is electrification because over the long term it reduces costs.

 

[AM9]

.... There maybe countless ways of funding but they boil down to either higher fares or more central government funding (ie tax revanue). The exception is electrification because over the long term it reduces costs.

Also there is a significant continuous demand for EMUs so their unit cost of acquisition and ownership is much lower, and service life much longer than an equivalent, specially designed for UK DMU.